![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
I don't mind if you use "Military Academy", but it has to be "The Military Academy". USMA is different from Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, because that's what these schools are known as. If you actually google Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, United States Naval Academy and United States Air Force Academy will pop up. If you search "Military Academy", you will see different things, which is absolutely a terrible name for USMA. It is what it is. It doesn't not have to be consistent with other service academies.It doesn't matter what you link to as well. The name is inappropriate- Šolon ( talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown ( talk) 08:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the recent edits to Andrews Field? There's also some uncivil typed diarrhea on the talk page I'm loathe to respond to directly. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Garuda, Auxiliary Pilot Badge has many issues, many caused by an inexperienced user. I added problem tags and a split tag, but didn't have a chance to explain my reasons. The user has already removed them twice, and left a hostile note on the talk page. Can you help? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noted the change you made to the "Commamders" section of the USAF article infobox. It's not that I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to whether you intend to make similar changes, for the sake of uniformity, to the infoboxes of the other service branch articles? ( USN, USMC, US Army & USCG) Cheers - theWOLFchild 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've just finished. The 'commander' section of the other 4 service branch infoboxes now match up with the way you set up the USAF box. The only difference to be found is in the service-specific rank abbreviations, as they vary depending on service, but it needs to be that way. However, there is a uniformity to all those sections now. (We'll see how long it lasts). I'm done for now. Hopefully when you're back in, you'll get a chance to check out that issue I posted on the FBI talk page, (if you don't mind). Cheers - theWOLFchild 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the
sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a
vandal when they've been previously warned. Note: This is not at all a warning, just a friendly request. Posting notifications helps identify vandals and point well-intentioned newcomers in the right direction. Thank you for all your efforts here on the project. Cheers -
theWOLFchild
23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain this ? And the removal of the data about 17th Division, 4th Corps? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Im new to Wikipedia editing, where is the United States Special Operations Forces talk page Mickteen11 ( talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You clearly have access to this year's edition of the almanac. Can you tell me which AEGs it lists in Air Forces Africa, and where and what they're flying? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
So its combined for USAFE and AFA
There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion, the message I put up at Pratikus's talk page was not meant for you. I'm afraid that they do not seem to understand talk page guidelines and are modifying other editors' comments in a misleading manner. — Gazoth ( talk) 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7th Operations Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what time the ceremony is scheduled for? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, but not an armed service, as was updated in this , which you undid. I'm not sure I can understand your reason for this ("References do not say this is typically a military service"). The edit indicated that the PHS Commissioned Corps is designated as a military service, as supported by the links to multiple sections of US Code - while preserving very clearly the appropriate distinction between "Armed Service" (which PHS is not) and "Uniformed Service". The law explicitly defines PHS as a military service, which it does *not* do for NOAA (the other unarmed Uniformed Service), so it is not accurate to ignore the distinction. It sounds like you are conflating "Armed Service" and "Military Service" in responding to this edit, which is a common and understandable but inaccurate view - PHS officers commonly face undue challenges in accessing military benefits they have earned and are legally guaranteed. It seems unnecessary to contribute further to this misperception by removing factual information.
Perhaps a more appropriate edit is along the lines of "PHS Commmissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, though not considered one of the 5 Armed Services, and officers of the PHS are classified as noncombatants...", rather than deleting the phrase entirely. I would also welcome your suggestion for rephrasing this if something about it still does not sit well.
120.29.112.185 ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
In the past, you've rightly changed redirects for the U.S. Space Force to the U.S. Air Force -- good idea. As of today, however, the U.S. president has called for the creation of an independent Space Force, a co-equal branch of the U.S. armed services. Any suggestions on what to do with redirects now would be appreciated. I've put out a U.S. Space Force page, to be expanded as time goes on. Regards, Senatus ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Commander in Chief, as it refers to the president of the United States has no hyphens. The few changes I’ve made have been restored to the original hyphenated version. I cite the originating authority, The Constitution of the United States.
/info/en/?search=United_States_Constitution#Article_Two https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/downloads/Constitution_Pg3of4_AC.jpg?download=true&filename=US-Constitution-p3.jpeg
This evidence is definitive and absolute. There is no ambiguity.
This is the page I’ve corrected and it then get changed back. Is that automatic or is someone doing it? /info/en/?search=United_States_Navy
Wiki info must be corrected when wrong.
thanks!
in that template? Sammartinlai ( talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good work slimming down the USAF page. - theWOLFchild 03:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That is very interesting. Miller is a career reserve officer, and for a reserve officer be nominated for a fourth star extremely rare. There is only one known four-star position that follows a reserve officer pipeline and that's the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and currently General Lengyel still has two more years remaining and I haven't heard of him requesting for early retirement. U.S. Northern Command's deputy commander has been a reserve officer three-star since 2008 (also particularly from the National Guard), and there was once talk about making the commander of USNORTHCOM a four-star officer from the National Guard, but that never came to fruition. Even now, General O'Shaughnessy only assumed command of USNORTHCOM this past May, so that rules out that job going to Miller. Her career, staff positions and commands held, are pretty broad throughout her career, so I can't make heads or tails on what current-known four-star position she may be inheriting. My hunch is that they are opening up a new four-star position for her. I hope they announce something soon. It's killing my curiosity. Neovu79 ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I downloaded the PDF file that 475847394d347339 linked and did a keyword search for flag. While the logo and flag color of the flag that 475847394d347339 posted is in the document on page 14, however section "1.5.6 Protection of logo integrity" which is listed on the same page states, Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo... The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280. which is the color of flag that is in the navigation box. In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with you that 475847394d347339 is interpenetrating it incorrectly. The compass of the logo are the same, but the flag color is PM 280, which is a darker blue than the one 475847394d347339 is referring to as a 2016 color change. Neovu79 ( talk) 05:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
No comment whatsoever. You know, since we have two instances of the flag and no instance of the real flag, I think it's quite notable. 475847394d347339 ( talk) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually according to the way Wikipedia works, that is exactly what is required. Garuda28 ( talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No, that we can because it is explicitly stated. Garuda28 ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Tell me, is it explicitly stated that these NATO flags are alternate variants? Garuda28 ( talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Or they could be errors that were not caught. The bottom line is we do not know since it was not explicitly stated. Since it was not explicitly stated it cannot be added. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
But we cannot say what it is. Anyways, it’s use does not appear to be notable either. The bottom line is that what is being done is pulling at threads. Wait for more people to comment and maybe you may have enough consensus to add. Until then, consensus appears to be against. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
What? I brought up that example to illustrate exactly why WP:ANALYSIS is in existence. We cannot know exactly why something is the way it is, so we cannot analyze it when we do sourcing. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I had added the category "General orders" to the page "Civil War Campaign Medal" since it has the following statement on the page:
RSStockdale ( talk) 23:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for moving the article ( /info/en/?search=Cyber_and_Information_Domain_Service_(Germany) ) to the right name but unfortunately it's still not correct. LtGen Leinhose is double headed. He is on one hand the chief of the new IT branch in Germany, the Cyber and Information Domain Service. And with his second duty he is the Commander of the headquarter of the branch in Bonn. The headquarter is called Cyber and Information Domain Service Headquarters. Because the wiki article only deals with the Headquarters and noch the over all Branch it is wrong to leave out this part of the name. If it stays like it is the hole content with the substructure of all subordinated units can be deleted. The Cyber and Information Domain Service is seen in Germany nearly like Army or Air force. It's a fully separated Branch. Or would you talk about the Army Headquarter and call it only Army? Thank you. Schariez ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Just thought you would want to know, that on August 13, 2018, President Trump signed into law, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. It includes the re-establishment of the U.S. Space Command by the end of 2018. It will temporarily be a sub-unified combatant command under U.S. Strategic Command, and who's commander will be a four-star general or flag officer, until it can be separated as a full unified combatant command. Neovu79 ( talk) 08:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think your to the branch seals in the infobox will last. I won't change it, but don't be surprised if someone else does soon. There are some issues there. Just a heads up... - wolf 05:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I had a look through MOS:MILTERMS and can't seem to find what it is you were relying on in your comments at the Chinese Navy page move discussion. Would you be able to point that out, or otherwise clarify your comment there? Thanks - wolf 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I've recently submitted a request to move National Guard of the United States to National Guard (United States), and I want to get your honest feedback on the subject. Neovu79 ( talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Is spelled with an "e" on the end. Rational means something completely different. I'm sure there are words I routinely mispell, like that one I just made accidentally, which is really "misspell". :) - BilCat ( talk) 07:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Garuda28. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Garuda28, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi I noticed you removed the JSDF suicide information from the page. Can we create a new page and put the information there? - Artanisen ( talk) 22:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Tried to fix a bad article.
This article has extensive inaccuracies. I added sourced edits in the first chapter since there were many inaccuracies and there were of course no sources for that section at all.
The other chapters are also heavily inaccurate and either need massive revision or should be eliminated altogether.
I largely wrote the uniform section in Wikipedia "United States Army Air Forces".
To illustrate the point I will list the inaccuracies of the "Class B" section alone. Except for the first chapter which is now corrected the rest of the chapters are just as bad.
The A,B,C,D uniforms in the article are just totally made up. The fact A and B are modern terms is stated but there wasn't then or now a C or D in the U.S. Army. What is given does not even correspond with USMC A B C D uniforms.
1. The campaign hat could be worn with any uniform.
2. Spread Collar refers to a very wide opening for the tie. The Army shirt was not a spread collar type.
3. Rank was not worn on officer's shirt shoulder straps to "prevent snipers". Prior to 1942 the U.S. pin was worn on the right shirt collar and the branch insignia on the left with rank on the shoulder straps if the shirt was being worn as an outer garment. In 1942 this was changed so the rank was removed from the shoulder straps and the U.S. was replaced by the rank on the right collar point.
4. Enlisted personnel did not wear insignia disks on their shirts in WWII. That was a post war development.
5. Enlisted branch of service disks were not worn on the garrison "overseas" cap.
6. Enlisted service stripes were indeed authorized on service shirt sleeves.
The photo of Donald Prell, while I'm sure chosen to honor a WWII veteran shows a blue infantry cord which was not created until the Korean War era. It is also being worn with armored branch insignia which would not be authorized at any time in the U.S. Army. Although I sympathize with the desire to use a WWII vet's photo it's not an accurate WWII uniform example for the purpose of this article.
I could go on but you get the point. This is but one small section. Most of these are easily sourced in the U.S. Army WWII uniform regulations. I am willing to fix the errors but the edit will be very extensive virtually eliminating whole chapters and adding others.
Please give me feedback if you think an administrator will allow me to correct this with well sourced material or at least put in a disputed notice.
Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound63 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naval Space Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Space command ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
could you please explain why it is unnecessary for the lead? Rajabi.abolghasem ( talk) 13:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for being open to compromise on
United States Air Force Security Forces.
Happy editing!
Schazjmd
(talk)
19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Garuda28 ~ Nice meeting you, I think how you edited the lead, gives you a good grasp on wiki ~ reliable sources are not always true ~ but are RS ~ and Wiki ~ blend well together ~ once again nice meeting you ~mitch~ ( talk) 21:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Functional combatant commands —— 联合果君 ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed, Garuda. There was that huge discussion in July on Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces. You and other editors agreed to changes in wording. The changes were made. Now, you're going back and undoing everything you agreed to and making the text read the way you wanted it to originally, which nobody else agreed with. Why are you doing this? Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to meet you ~ |
~ Thanks for your edits on United States Air Force ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Raymond ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. " List of countries without armed forces" I recently made an edit in that article with removing content about Haiti and Japan from the lead of that article. For me topic is clear just sovereign countries without army and it is list of them and in the list I checked short description about them. Countries who abolished and reestablished army now has it, so no need about to be in that article. User Timothy Titus reverted my edits and made an edit what fit good into body of whole article. But seems to note about Japan can make edit wars cuz some users think Japan does not have armed forces or to it has limited military capacities what is not true. In the article is said to "The term armed forces refers to any government-sponsored defense used to further the domestic and foreign policies of their respective government". Japan has armed forces, organised and equiped totally in that way, totally separated from police and under control of independent Ministry of defence and recognised by other armies in a form of cooperation with etc. So maybe note about Japan and Haiti should be removed or should be paid more attention to users does not change facs according to their personal views or so. Cheers. 77.46.180.18 ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Anywhere in the talk page was reached a consensus, Japan was re-added without consensus. I agree that further discussion is neeeded, however Wikipedia's policies clearly establish that the version of the article should be reversed to the pre-polemic version.
Nevertheless I could agree in removing any mention of Japan whilst the discussion is continued in the talk page, which I think maybe a better option for all parties in the meantime. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Just an observation and suggestion. Maybe it would be easier to temporarily block unregistered users from editing the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy pages until AFTER the Army-Navy game. LOL... Cuprum17 ( talk) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your latest edit; work at the CSpOC; we fall under both the Air Force and Space Force. USSF has OPCON and TACON over us, but the Air Force has ADCON over us until the USSF staff is finished standing up their S1, S2, and S3. That should occur in roughly 18 months, but until then, we are Airmen working for the USSF. I have been tasked by our commander to make these edits and he was asking why Air Force got removed. Kyle Mohr ( talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I was checking events about US and Iran and declaration of US armed forces as "terrorist organisation" by Iran. I saw to there was discussion on talk page about that at US armed forces article now I saw to similar content is added at US DoD page. I don't know do that note about that has a weight cuz it seems mostly as propaganda move and if it really has some infulence to be noted outside Iran-US relations article. And labeling whole armed forces as terrorists I dont know what kind of infulence can have except some propaganda measure. Maybe should be removed from article of US DoD and discussed at talk page and other editors also to put own oponions. Also I think to Iranian IRCG an quds force are labeled as terrorists but they are paramilitary and labeled by more countries and still not as whole armed forces. 109.245.39.75 ( talk) 16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I work* Sorry, typo. Kyle Mohr ( talk) 08:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I already have; JAG says I'm in the clear.
Kyle Mohr ( talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Garuda28,
Thank you for creating Combined Force Space Component Command.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for your new article on the Combined Force Space Component Command.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 30th Space Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Range ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Just so ya know, I nominated an arty you created for DYK. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda,
I saw that you reverted my edit concerning above mentioned insignia. If you look at the Army insignia, worn by Troxell, it has got three rockers, just like all other Army E-9 insignias. The one worn by Colón-López has got five rockers, just like all other Air Force E-9 insignias. As for the Marine Corps, the E-9 insignias all have got four rockers, so, why do you think the USMC SEAC insignia has got only three rockers?
Have a nice day, 2001:7E8:D325:AF01:10EB:830D:755E:6633 ( talk) 11:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Be mindful of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR respecting United States Space Force.- Splinemath ( talk) 02:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
i Finished the Flags, Some flags may seem wonky in some areas ( my program is not the best :( )
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BlinxTheKitty (
talk •
contribs)
17:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someones going Deletion Trigger Happy and trying to delete the Space Flags
their seals are Public Domain due to being Published by the US Gov. i have no clue how they think they are copyright vios — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlinxTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Per the Space Force Licensing page, the word marks are available for public use, but "The U.S. Space Force Seal is reserved for internal, official use only." Does mean we can't legally use the Seal? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix on United States Air Force enlisted rank insignia. I didn't notice that my revert didn't pick up all of the edits that I meant it to because there were different IPs. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28. With regards to your recent revision comment related to the Davis Guard Medal article, I justified the ribbon bar addition based on the following Rice University Woodson Research Center library citation: "At the suggestion of Jefferson Davis himself, the soldiers also received silver medals with green ribbons." [1] The Wikipedia article itself also states "The campaign medal hung from a green ribbon, in honor of the Irish origins of the unit's members." With these references in mind, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the issue at hand. Very respectfully, Lieutcoluseng ( talk) 23:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
List of space forces, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
b
uidh
e
19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Think: If an Air Force has its own signals, logistics, medical, military police, electronic warfare etc branch, and another one has outsourced all that into a joint support branch, and then you start comparing these Air Force's manpowers, wouldn't that be distorting? And all you have to say is "Air Forces" are "Air Forces"!? Well then, en.wiki... LKIT2 ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The USSF flag has been revealed per this. What do we need to do to get an SVG version made? Should we just use the JPG version for now? Btw, I'm surprised they went with a black flag, as the seal uses a nice dark blue. - BilCat ( talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I played around with changing the background of the flag to dark blue, but I didn't like it. (Bad file, so I didn't post it.) Then I changed the seal's background to black. I think I like the black better. - BilCat ( talk) 01:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, wanted to upload an image cropped from US Air Force Academy yearbook. Are those in the public domain? -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 03:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps under USAF the 30th Space Wing "was the range" in USAF history but the range was preexisting and has considerable history as the Navy Pacific Missile Range (PMR). That was addressed in the article you simply redirected without ensuring the target article had coverage or at least mention. Neither function nor existence of the range appeared out of nothing. That needs at least a mention in any "Range" discussion. I might agree to a thing, the range, equating to an organization with such coverage included, but not to obliterating the fact the range had previous history and "management." Palmeira ( talk) 12:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi.. refer to my edit on coast guards, it's true that we have discussion on this matter on
WP:MILHIST a while ago.
However, after that discussion archived. I just noticed that refer to
MOS:IBX, infobox should summarizes key features of the page's subject. IMO key feature's on the page subject's are it's role and coast guards primary role is maritime law enforcement, meanwhile military unit primary role is for warfare (defense or invasion). Same argument applies to changes on infobox on
gendarmerie and
military police pages.
The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 lists 11 US Coast Guard missions, most of them are law enforcement related and defense readiness is only one of the Coast Guard’s missions. USCG's mission also can be see
here, So USCG key role is on law enforcement.
Compare USCG mission to US Navy
mission, where it said The Dept of Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterence through sustained naval presense..
Ckfasdf (
talk)
02:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda, I don't know if you remember, but back in March, you helped me sort out the Whiteman Air Force Base article because someone had copy-pasted a bunch of material there. I ended up rewriting most of the article. I just ran across a different article - The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle - where it looks like most of the text was copy-pasted from here. Is it okay to just delete that text? Not sure what the proper way to proceed is, as that material is the bulk of the the article. JimKaatFan ( talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop switching the flag. The flag that keeps being put up is the correct flag. If something is associated create a section on the page for it, but the main flag is the one that you keep taking down.
Hey Garuda28, my apologies to tap on you, but any chance I can get you to chime in here - Just looking for some ideas on the lead (trying to keep it concise & grammatically correct) Cheers FOX 52 ( talk) 05:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Seal_Team_Six. Konli17 ( talk) 13:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been doing a list of the commanders of the Space and Missile Systems Center and here's what I've come up with so far /info/en/?search=User:AFLBulawan/sandbox2 Is there any resource to check for a timeline of commanders of SMC or any other unit because so far I'm only cross-referencing it with secondary references, i.e. photos, press releases of the headquarter's website. -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 02:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Garuda28: and @ Maliepa: So here's my beef with the NDAA 2020, while it requires all services to publish three-star and four-star assignments to the general media, it leaves a back door for the Army not to announce them if they deem that announcing such assignments to be detrimental. So once again, they are taking full advantage of that loop hole and will not announce them, EVER. The DoD will sometimes announce Army general officer assignments to joint positions within the DoD, but lately, that's not a given due to the Army's intervention and their standing policy to not announce general officer assignments until AFTER the officer is confirmed by the Senate. At this point, they will never announce their general/flag officer assignments, like the other six armed services do now, as they follow the general provision of the law via NDAA 2020. And while I don't haven definitive proof of Dickinson's assignment as commander of USSPACECOM, I'm rarely wrong in my assumptions for the past six years, given the available information, and due to all four-star positions having specific career-patch and service requirements, by U.S. law, in order to be appointed to such positions. So while I don't actually agree with you removing the assignment info, I do understand why you did, just that we will not see eye-to-eye on that subject. As for LTG Cavoli, he is most likely going to be replacing GEN Miller as commander of U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, as Miller's two-year assignment as commander is coming to an end. Cavoli also has years of experience in Afghanistan. Neovu79 ( talk) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop [2] removing a very rare public reference to very low-profile units!! We add refs, not remove them!! Buckshot06
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).? Looking though my history I didn’t realize I removed that before and then was reverted by you, my apologies. I did not intend to go around you like that.
Garuda28 (
talk)
12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remote the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris ( talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris ( talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you know what AFSOCJTAC means? A new user has just created an account by that name, and I wanted to make sure it didn't violate COI and Username by implying an official account. I'm.also trying to avoid biting a new user by overreacting. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, is there a particular reason why you used an unabbreviated service branch for the deputy commander and senior enlisted leader in the commanders section in United States Space Command? Would it be possible to use the abbreviations instead as a suffix? -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28, you are familiar with Template:Infobox military unit (MU) and Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) - WikiProject Military discussion in March and United States Revenue Cutter Service discussion last month. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I have to contact editors directly. Can you please review it - anything you would change, add, suggest, etc.. It will be similar to military using Template:Infobox national military then for units MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You're already on this, I see https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287005/space-force-begins-transition-into-field-organizational-structure. Tell me what help you need. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Garrison commands of the United States Space Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda,
Some editors peristently keep pushing POV by readding nonexistent bases to Pakistan and Turkey in the List of countries with overseas military bases. See my comments on talkpage there. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen this edit? I tried to read the PDF the IP cites, but I couldn't get through the milspeak. (I didn't spend much time on it, as I'm still trolling through my watchlist.) Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for a page that would just be a list of combat jumps. Originally I was trying to figure out if there was a way to know which US soldier in WWII had the most but I don't think that is possible unless it happens to be someone famous like Lew Nixon. Regardless I think it would be interesting and useful in its own right. Cheers 96.240.128.124 ( talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from its website, "U.S. Naval Institute" is it's official name, and probably the most common one also, yet the article is at United States Naval Institute. Do you know anything about it? BilCat ( talk) 03:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I see our "friend" is still refusing to drop the sitck about DMY formats. Most the responses have reiterated what we already told him before, and he still doesn't let go. Sigh. I've considered chiming in again, but I'd just be repeating what's already been said over and over to no avail. BilCat ( talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I know we’ve had our disagreements but I think the current version is the best one. It doesn’t paint them as infantry as infantry holds ground and attacks and defends whereas secfor more defends. Hopefully this version stays . Cowsthatfloat ( talk) 01:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User Silverdragon3002 changed content in that article Military, content is about rankings of a militaries by country according to Credit Suisse. User removed that source and added something called globalfirepower what seems as a just some type of blog as a source. Please if you can check it, it seems pretty messy. 178.222.117.254 ( talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 21st Fighter Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Downlink | The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter |
---|---|---|
WikiProject Notification |
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members. |
---|
The Downlink project page |
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020. |
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thought you would find this interesting: [3]
So, it looks like 14 AF was redesignated Space Operations Command, but is now being inactivated and transferring its assets to a newly constituted Space Operations Command. Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey. Just as an FYI, most if not all pages which shows national rank templates has "The rank insignia for commissioned officers for the army, navy and air force respectively." written in some form or another. Making your change unnecessary. Additionally, there are now 247 templates with full names and 1072 templates without, resulting in inconsistency between the templates, as seen on Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. Skjoldbro ( talk) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment...In your recent edit summary of the United States Coast Guard, you mention that "Deputy SELs generally aren’t considered among the top leadership of a service". That may be true of the other armed services, but not the Coast Guard. While I agree with the reasoning of your edit, the Coast Guard is a different animal when compared to any of the other services. (The Space Force is too new to make that kind of judgment.) The Coast Guard is so small that anyone that has served more than a couple of enlistments can not go to a new duty assignment without running into others that they have served with before at another station or cutter. I served in the Coast Guard for 18 years and any duty station that I was assigned, there were at least a half a dozen people that I knew from other duty assignments. It is indeed a small service. This is not a criticism of your edit, just a comment on the one of the many differences between the Coast Guard and its sister services. I totally agree with you about whether the deputy senior enlisted need to be listed in an infobox. They don't...TMI! They wouldn't be listed for the Army so why the Coast Guard? But...I guess my point is that sometimes things within the Coast Guard are significant to the Coast Guard but it wouldn't make a damn in the larger services. Thank you for the edit you have made and the hundreds of other edits on military articles. Without your edits, many of the service articles would be a jumbled mess. I am just taking the opportunity to tell you to keep on fighting the good fight. Cheers. Cuprum17 ( talk) 16:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Mate
I amended the Tile of the RANK to Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force as that is the RANK. Where as the OFFICE/POSITION is titled Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force. The USSF unlike the other 5 branches are potentially separating the rank from the Office.
I made the change based on this facebook image where he signs the slip of paper as CMSSF #1 https://www.facebook.com/SEASpaceForce/photos/a.113666273639089/170459147959801/
-- Hawkeyebasil ( talk) 11:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
By any chance are you able to make the rank tables you added, collapsible? It just seems like a lot to look at for an article about the overall U.S. military. Also, I personally would have preferred to only cover their rank structures in that greater detail only in each of the individual service pages as they currently are there. A cursory mention or link to "see main articles" in this article would have sufficed. Having them on United States Armed Forces just seems kind of redundant. Neovu79 ( talk) 05:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, You keep doing a blanket delete of the page, removing pictures and information that is actually sourced, but keep saying it’s not sourced. For instance, you keep deleting all of the battles/wars that they’ve been actively involved in, but that information comes from Air Force Manuals. You keep deleting the section displaying the Beret flash it’s description as well as the text stating that the Air Force expects security forces to be first in and fit to fight, which was taken right out of official documentation. Also, many sources have referred to Security Forces as the Air Force’s “infantry”, (not Army Infantry, there’s a differentiation there) including their “Top Cop”, Brigadier General Andrea Tullos who stared “we size up to the Army’s lightest of light infantry” which is documented. Can we go through the information and at least stop completely discrediting these guys? User60314 ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thought you might find this page useful. Cheers - wolf 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
For the Navy and Coast Guard apprenticeship rank (E-1 to E-3), a fireman apprentice is still a seaman apprentice by rank. Fireman apprentice is the Navy's job/rate title for a seaman apprentice in the fireman community. The same thing goes for an person who is a airman apprentice. That person is still holding the rank of seaman apprentice. When a fireman is promoted to petty officer third class, they hold the title fireman third class, etc. If they are promoted to chief petty officer, they hold the title chief fireman. The different colors for fireman and airman are considered job colors only. I think it would be less cluttered for the table, if it only included the most common job rating and rank color for the chevrons. So for E-1 to E-3 would be white as it is the most common color as that main community separates into dozens of job ratings. Also red chevrons through petty officer first class would be appropriate and most of the time they hit 12 years of service while in the middle of holding that rank after a couple of years. Neovu79 ( talk) 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Hopkins and Air University.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Military Barnstar | |
In recognition of all the effort you have been putting into military articles, including the collaborating you have done on the talk pages. Your good work hasn't gone unnoticed, so keep it up! Cheers - wolf 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
That's sad... I was looking forward to adding another naval rank structure to the uniformed service rank tables. However, just because Congress isn't forcing them to adopt naval ranks, it doesn't mean that they won't adopt them eventually. Who knows, LOL. Also, did you see that GEN Paul LaCamera was nominated to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve while serving as commander of U.S. Forces Korea? That's actually a strange one to me, given the unrest with China and North Korea. One would assume that the men and women under that command would want an officer that's serving in the Regular Army, but then again, LaCamera has been serving in the Regular Army his entire career. My only conclusion is that they asked him to go into the reserves as either a cost saving or a financial measure. Personnel pay for active duty reserves is provided from a different allotment of funds, rather than the funds allotted to regulars. Neovu79 ( talk) 10:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing this edit? I reverted it for a couple reasons; first it caught my attention as it was marked as "minor" when it obviously was not, but also because it completely re-wrote a section, removing info about the Chief of Staff, and content that was part of the attached ref, as well as the tone and meaning of the section.
But that said, there was other info added, with an additional ref. (I don't want to just dismiss this, but trying to collaborate with this editor is... difficult. I don't want to see the whole thing spiral into a dog's breakfast, over a single edit.) If you could take a look at the edit and the ref, see if you think it's worthwhile, then go from there. It would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Training and Readiness Delta (Provisional), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycroft.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Er, sorry, the distinguished and notable Guardians of the Space Force ;) I swear, what a choice!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history " Military Historian of the Year" and " Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For being a pleasure to work with over at United States Space Force. You've worked with me and others to address multiple talk page concerns. You've been open to trimming large parts of the article. You've added paragraphs of high quality content. I was expecting battles for some of this stuff, but in each case you immediately saw our root concerns and were an absolute pleasure to work with. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Thought Space Delta 7 was the new member of the intelligence community? L'amateur d'aéroplanes ( talk) 06:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my point about the credibility of Space Force being linked to people's view of Trump? His involvement directly influences opinions on the value of Space Force. This is very pertinent to the reception that Space Force has received; which was the section to which I made my addition. There was no need to remove my valid point. Kindly put it back Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Article clearly says that for much of the public Space Force is seen as a Trump vanity project. Exactly my point. Please put my statement back Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I am having to work from a smart phone with limited capability. If you would return my original post I am willing to change it to reflect the vanity project wording. Are you willing to do this? Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Missile Range.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"The rank was originally known as the Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force until it was renamed on 1 October 2021."
????
BilCat (
talk)
19:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for re-ordering the paragraphs -- I was doing the same thing but you beat me to it, so I'm glad we can agree on that at least as a temporary compromise (especially at this moment when more people are looking at the article and trying to figure out what Space Force actually is).
I may continue seeking to improve the lede in coming days, or I may lose interest, not sure yet. But I appreciate that you and (it looks like) a few others have put a ton of work into the article and I don't mean to be antagonistic. I was simply bothered that, like all those other people, I decided to check the Space Force article tonight to try to get a better idea of what SF is, and then on the second sentence it started talking about things happening in the 40s and 50s and my brain went "this is irrelevant to me I'm no longer interested I'm putting my phone down." Anyway, thanks again for the compromise and have a good night. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Just to let you know, I rollbacked your action on List of US Space Force installations. If you intend to blank and move a page, you should discuss it on the talkpage before making the action. There is already precedent for "List of's" with other US branches. The page is noteworthy within itself, and complies with WP:NOTE. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio! 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As I'm sure you saw in your watchlist, there was bout of vandalism on the SF page last week. The page was protected, but I wanted to point you to the SPI report that followed, since I don't know if you're aware of it or not. The admin there said to ping him if that kind of disruption occurs again. I'm just letting you know because you'd likely notice before me and would want to deal with it. - wolf 21:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this edit? Thanks - wolf 04:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Neovu79: "I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone...
" - No offense, but this isn't about how well you can see them. We should be taking others into account as well, no?
"...and I would be opposed to changing it back
" - why so adamant about it?
"The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform.
" - but this isn't the Marines, it's WP. And there is a difference between a full size patch on an actual uniform and an image that's only a couple millimeters in size on phone.
"The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates
" - the operative word being "changed". If they can be changed one way, they be changed another, no?
"The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service
" - well, the dress uniforms are just as professional, if not arguably more so. They're certainly more representational, consider what the service uniforms are used for and what the dress uniforms are used for. But that's not even the main crux of this, as I said, I'm just asking for the whereabouts of the consensus that led to the change. You have both mentioned (or alluded) to it. Perhaps it'll help me understand why you're so entrenched on this. Thanks again -
wolf
02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My edit of this article was purely grammatical. It had nothing to do with the status of the various members of the Joint Chiefs. The grammatical rule has to do with parallelism. The term "service chiefs" applies to the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. The representative of the NGB is referred to as a "chief." So there are three grammatically correct ways to write the list:
1. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau
2. the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau
3. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau
In #3, you need the second "and" to avoid a violation of parallelism. The grammatical shape of # 3 is:
the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force
and
the chief of the National Guard Bureau
Again, this is only a grammatical point. It has nothing to do with the status of these officers. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.D. ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Please do not make controversial moves without discussing them first. This is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial which recommends discussing the move whenever "someone could reasonably disagree with the move." In this case, the titles you are using are clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME [4] ( t · c) buidhe 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wow! Well done!! Morgengave ( talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for moving the Vandenberg Space Force Base article. Right decision. osunpokeh ( talk) 23:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I just ran across Cyber Branch (United States Army) while trying to answer a question at Template talk:US Army navbox#Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021. United States Army Cyber Command is already linked in the navbox, so I'm wondering if this is what the user is referring to. Unfortunately, the Cyber Branch article has minimal content, and really doesn't adequately explain what it is or what it does. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi G, have you seen Space Development Agency? It probably needs some navboxes, but I'm not sure which ones would be best. The article states the SDA is supposed to become part of the USSF, so should it be added somewhere on a USSF navbox? Also, one sentence has 26!! references, some of which are used elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I see you removed pillar point from the map, I reverted the changes back to before. However, if you do have a source or reason as to why it should be removed please put it in the edit summary next time. CJBruh ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
... might be "rebuttal." (in your fight over Trump's disparagement of the dead.)
Incidentally, you're credible and White isn't, given Trump's comments on McCain being taken prisoner.
Cheers, David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
I don't mind if you use "Military Academy", but it has to be "The Military Academy". USMA is different from Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, because that's what these schools are known as. If you actually google Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, United States Naval Academy and United States Air Force Academy will pop up. If you search "Military Academy", you will see different things, which is absolutely a terrible name for USMA. It is what it is. It doesn't not have to be consistent with other service academies.It doesn't matter what you link to as well. The name is inappropriate- Šolon ( talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown ( talk) 08:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the recent edits to Andrews Field? There's also some uncivil typed diarrhea on the talk page I'm loathe to respond to directly. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Garuda, Auxiliary Pilot Badge has many issues, many caused by an inexperienced user. I added problem tags and a split tag, but didn't have a chance to explain my reasons. The user has already removed them twice, and left a hostile note on the talk page. Can you help? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noted the change you made to the "Commamders" section of the USAF article infobox. It's not that I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to whether you intend to make similar changes, for the sake of uniformity, to the infoboxes of the other service branch articles? ( USN, USMC, US Army & USCG) Cheers - theWOLFchild 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've just finished. The 'commander' section of the other 4 service branch infoboxes now match up with the way you set up the USAF box. The only difference to be found is in the service-specific rank abbreviations, as they vary depending on service, but it needs to be that way. However, there is a uniformity to all those sections now. (We'll see how long it lasts). I'm done for now. Hopefully when you're back in, you'll get a chance to check out that issue I posted on the FBI talk page, (if you don't mind). Cheers - theWOLFchild 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the
sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a
vandal when they've been previously warned. Note: This is not at all a warning, just a friendly request. Posting notifications helps identify vandals and point well-intentioned newcomers in the right direction. Thank you for all your efforts here on the project. Cheers -
theWOLFchild
23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain this ? And the removal of the data about 17th Division, 4th Corps? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Im new to Wikipedia editing, where is the United States Special Operations Forces talk page Mickteen11 ( talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You clearly have access to this year's edition of the almanac. Can you tell me which AEGs it lists in Air Forces Africa, and where and what they're flying? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
So its combined for USAFE and AFA
There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion, the message I put up at Pratikus's talk page was not meant for you. I'm afraid that they do not seem to understand talk page guidelines and are modifying other editors' comments in a misleading manner. — Gazoth ( talk) 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7th Operations Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what time the ceremony is scheduled for? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, but not an armed service, as was updated in this , which you undid. I'm not sure I can understand your reason for this ("References do not say this is typically a military service"). The edit indicated that the PHS Commissioned Corps is designated as a military service, as supported by the links to multiple sections of US Code - while preserving very clearly the appropriate distinction between "Armed Service" (which PHS is not) and "Uniformed Service". The law explicitly defines PHS as a military service, which it does *not* do for NOAA (the other unarmed Uniformed Service), so it is not accurate to ignore the distinction. It sounds like you are conflating "Armed Service" and "Military Service" in responding to this edit, which is a common and understandable but inaccurate view - PHS officers commonly face undue challenges in accessing military benefits they have earned and are legally guaranteed. It seems unnecessary to contribute further to this misperception by removing factual information.
Perhaps a more appropriate edit is along the lines of "PHS Commmissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, though not considered one of the 5 Armed Services, and officers of the PHS are classified as noncombatants...", rather than deleting the phrase entirely. I would also welcome your suggestion for rephrasing this if something about it still does not sit well.
120.29.112.185 ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
In the past, you've rightly changed redirects for the U.S. Space Force to the U.S. Air Force -- good idea. As of today, however, the U.S. president has called for the creation of an independent Space Force, a co-equal branch of the U.S. armed services. Any suggestions on what to do with redirects now would be appreciated. I've put out a U.S. Space Force page, to be expanded as time goes on. Regards, Senatus ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Commander in Chief, as it refers to the president of the United States has no hyphens. The few changes I’ve made have been restored to the original hyphenated version. I cite the originating authority, The Constitution of the United States.
/info/en/?search=United_States_Constitution#Article_Two https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/downloads/Constitution_Pg3of4_AC.jpg?download=true&filename=US-Constitution-p3.jpeg
This evidence is definitive and absolute. There is no ambiguity.
This is the page I’ve corrected and it then get changed back. Is that automatic or is someone doing it? /info/en/?search=United_States_Navy
Wiki info must be corrected when wrong.
thanks!
in that template? Sammartinlai ( talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good work slimming down the USAF page. - theWOLFchild 03:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That is very interesting. Miller is a career reserve officer, and for a reserve officer be nominated for a fourth star extremely rare. There is only one known four-star position that follows a reserve officer pipeline and that's the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and currently General Lengyel still has two more years remaining and I haven't heard of him requesting for early retirement. U.S. Northern Command's deputy commander has been a reserve officer three-star since 2008 (also particularly from the National Guard), and there was once talk about making the commander of USNORTHCOM a four-star officer from the National Guard, but that never came to fruition. Even now, General O'Shaughnessy only assumed command of USNORTHCOM this past May, so that rules out that job going to Miller. Her career, staff positions and commands held, are pretty broad throughout her career, so I can't make heads or tails on what current-known four-star position she may be inheriting. My hunch is that they are opening up a new four-star position for her. I hope they announce something soon. It's killing my curiosity. Neovu79 ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I downloaded the PDF file that 475847394d347339 linked and did a keyword search for flag. While the logo and flag color of the flag that 475847394d347339 posted is in the document on page 14, however section "1.5.6 Protection of logo integrity" which is listed on the same page states, Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo... The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280. which is the color of flag that is in the navigation box. In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with you that 475847394d347339 is interpenetrating it incorrectly. The compass of the logo are the same, but the flag color is PM 280, which is a darker blue than the one 475847394d347339 is referring to as a 2016 color change. Neovu79 ( talk) 05:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
No comment whatsoever. You know, since we have two instances of the flag and no instance of the real flag, I think it's quite notable. 475847394d347339 ( talk) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually according to the way Wikipedia works, that is exactly what is required. Garuda28 ( talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No, that we can because it is explicitly stated. Garuda28 ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Tell me, is it explicitly stated that these NATO flags are alternate variants? Garuda28 ( talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Or they could be errors that were not caught. The bottom line is we do not know since it was not explicitly stated. Since it was not explicitly stated it cannot be added. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
But we cannot say what it is. Anyways, it’s use does not appear to be notable either. The bottom line is that what is being done is pulling at threads. Wait for more people to comment and maybe you may have enough consensus to add. Until then, consensus appears to be against. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
What? I brought up that example to illustrate exactly why WP:ANALYSIS is in existence. We cannot know exactly why something is the way it is, so we cannot analyze it when we do sourcing. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I had added the category "General orders" to the page "Civil War Campaign Medal" since it has the following statement on the page:
RSStockdale ( talk) 23:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for moving the article ( /info/en/?search=Cyber_and_Information_Domain_Service_(Germany) ) to the right name but unfortunately it's still not correct. LtGen Leinhose is double headed. He is on one hand the chief of the new IT branch in Germany, the Cyber and Information Domain Service. And with his second duty he is the Commander of the headquarter of the branch in Bonn. The headquarter is called Cyber and Information Domain Service Headquarters. Because the wiki article only deals with the Headquarters and noch the over all Branch it is wrong to leave out this part of the name. If it stays like it is the hole content with the substructure of all subordinated units can be deleted. The Cyber and Information Domain Service is seen in Germany nearly like Army or Air force. It's a fully separated Branch. Or would you talk about the Army Headquarter and call it only Army? Thank you. Schariez ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Just thought you would want to know, that on August 13, 2018, President Trump signed into law, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. It includes the re-establishment of the U.S. Space Command by the end of 2018. It will temporarily be a sub-unified combatant command under U.S. Strategic Command, and who's commander will be a four-star general or flag officer, until it can be separated as a full unified combatant command. Neovu79 ( talk) 08:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think your to the branch seals in the infobox will last. I won't change it, but don't be surprised if someone else does soon. There are some issues there. Just a heads up... - wolf 05:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I had a look through MOS:MILTERMS and can't seem to find what it is you were relying on in your comments at the Chinese Navy page move discussion. Would you be able to point that out, or otherwise clarify your comment there? Thanks - wolf 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I've recently submitted a request to move National Guard of the United States to National Guard (United States), and I want to get your honest feedback on the subject. Neovu79 ( talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Is spelled with an "e" on the end. Rational means something completely different. I'm sure there are words I routinely mispell, like that one I just made accidentally, which is really "misspell". :) - BilCat ( talk) 07:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Garuda28. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Garuda28, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi I noticed you removed the JSDF suicide information from the page. Can we create a new page and put the information there? - Artanisen ( talk) 22:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Tried to fix a bad article.
This article has extensive inaccuracies. I added sourced edits in the first chapter since there were many inaccuracies and there were of course no sources for that section at all.
The other chapters are also heavily inaccurate and either need massive revision or should be eliminated altogether.
I largely wrote the uniform section in Wikipedia "United States Army Air Forces".
To illustrate the point I will list the inaccuracies of the "Class B" section alone. Except for the first chapter which is now corrected the rest of the chapters are just as bad.
The A,B,C,D uniforms in the article are just totally made up. The fact A and B are modern terms is stated but there wasn't then or now a C or D in the U.S. Army. What is given does not even correspond with USMC A B C D uniforms.
1. The campaign hat could be worn with any uniform.
2. Spread Collar refers to a very wide opening for the tie. The Army shirt was not a spread collar type.
3. Rank was not worn on officer's shirt shoulder straps to "prevent snipers". Prior to 1942 the U.S. pin was worn on the right shirt collar and the branch insignia on the left with rank on the shoulder straps if the shirt was being worn as an outer garment. In 1942 this was changed so the rank was removed from the shoulder straps and the U.S. was replaced by the rank on the right collar point.
4. Enlisted personnel did not wear insignia disks on their shirts in WWII. That was a post war development.
5. Enlisted branch of service disks were not worn on the garrison "overseas" cap.
6. Enlisted service stripes were indeed authorized on service shirt sleeves.
The photo of Donald Prell, while I'm sure chosen to honor a WWII veteran shows a blue infantry cord which was not created until the Korean War era. It is also being worn with armored branch insignia which would not be authorized at any time in the U.S. Army. Although I sympathize with the desire to use a WWII vet's photo it's not an accurate WWII uniform example for the purpose of this article.
I could go on but you get the point. This is but one small section. Most of these are easily sourced in the U.S. Army WWII uniform regulations. I am willing to fix the errors but the edit will be very extensive virtually eliminating whole chapters and adding others.
Please give me feedback if you think an administrator will allow me to correct this with well sourced material or at least put in a disputed notice.
Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound63 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naval Space Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Space command ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
could you please explain why it is unnecessary for the lead? Rajabi.abolghasem ( talk) 13:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for being open to compromise on
United States Air Force Security Forces.
Happy editing!
Schazjmd
(talk)
19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Garuda28 ~ Nice meeting you, I think how you edited the lead, gives you a good grasp on wiki ~ reliable sources are not always true ~ but are RS ~ and Wiki ~ blend well together ~ once again nice meeting you ~mitch~ ( talk) 21:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Functional combatant commands —— 联合果君 ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed, Garuda. There was that huge discussion in July on Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces. You and other editors agreed to changes in wording. The changes were made. Now, you're going back and undoing everything you agreed to and making the text read the way you wanted it to originally, which nobody else agreed with. Why are you doing this? Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to meet you ~ |
~ Thanks for your edits on United States Air Force ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Raymond ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. " List of countries without armed forces" I recently made an edit in that article with removing content about Haiti and Japan from the lead of that article. For me topic is clear just sovereign countries without army and it is list of them and in the list I checked short description about them. Countries who abolished and reestablished army now has it, so no need about to be in that article. User Timothy Titus reverted my edits and made an edit what fit good into body of whole article. But seems to note about Japan can make edit wars cuz some users think Japan does not have armed forces or to it has limited military capacities what is not true. In the article is said to "The term armed forces refers to any government-sponsored defense used to further the domestic and foreign policies of their respective government". Japan has armed forces, organised and equiped totally in that way, totally separated from police and under control of independent Ministry of defence and recognised by other armies in a form of cooperation with etc. So maybe note about Japan and Haiti should be removed or should be paid more attention to users does not change facs according to their personal views or so. Cheers. 77.46.180.18 ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Anywhere in the talk page was reached a consensus, Japan was re-added without consensus. I agree that further discussion is neeeded, however Wikipedia's policies clearly establish that the version of the article should be reversed to the pre-polemic version.
Nevertheless I could agree in removing any mention of Japan whilst the discussion is continued in the talk page, which I think maybe a better option for all parties in the meantime. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Just an observation and suggestion. Maybe it would be easier to temporarily block unregistered users from editing the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy pages until AFTER the Army-Navy game. LOL... Cuprum17 ( talk) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your latest edit; work at the CSpOC; we fall under both the Air Force and Space Force. USSF has OPCON and TACON over us, but the Air Force has ADCON over us until the USSF staff is finished standing up their S1, S2, and S3. That should occur in roughly 18 months, but until then, we are Airmen working for the USSF. I have been tasked by our commander to make these edits and he was asking why Air Force got removed. Kyle Mohr ( talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I was checking events about US and Iran and declaration of US armed forces as "terrorist organisation" by Iran. I saw to there was discussion on talk page about that at US armed forces article now I saw to similar content is added at US DoD page. I don't know do that note about that has a weight cuz it seems mostly as propaganda move and if it really has some infulence to be noted outside Iran-US relations article. And labeling whole armed forces as terrorists I dont know what kind of infulence can have except some propaganda measure. Maybe should be removed from article of US DoD and discussed at talk page and other editors also to put own oponions. Also I think to Iranian IRCG an quds force are labeled as terrorists but they are paramilitary and labeled by more countries and still not as whole armed forces. 109.245.39.75 ( talk) 16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I work* Sorry, typo. Kyle Mohr ( talk) 08:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I already have; JAG says I'm in the clear.
Kyle Mohr ( talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Garuda28,
Thank you for creating Combined Force Space Component Command.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for your new article on the Combined Force Space Component Command.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 30th Space Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Range ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Just so ya know, I nominated an arty you created for DYK. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda,
I saw that you reverted my edit concerning above mentioned insignia. If you look at the Army insignia, worn by Troxell, it has got three rockers, just like all other Army E-9 insignias. The one worn by Colón-López has got five rockers, just like all other Air Force E-9 insignias. As for the Marine Corps, the E-9 insignias all have got four rockers, so, why do you think the USMC SEAC insignia has got only three rockers?
Have a nice day, 2001:7E8:D325:AF01:10EB:830D:755E:6633 ( talk) 11:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Be mindful of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR respecting United States Space Force.- Splinemath ( talk) 02:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
i Finished the Flags, Some flags may seem wonky in some areas ( my program is not the best :( )
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BlinxTheKitty (
talk •
contribs)
17:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someones going Deletion Trigger Happy and trying to delete the Space Flags
their seals are Public Domain due to being Published by the US Gov. i have no clue how they think they are copyright vios — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlinxTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Per the Space Force Licensing page, the word marks are available for public use, but "The U.S. Space Force Seal is reserved for internal, official use only." Does mean we can't legally use the Seal? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix on United States Air Force enlisted rank insignia. I didn't notice that my revert didn't pick up all of the edits that I meant it to because there were different IPs. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28. With regards to your recent revision comment related to the Davis Guard Medal article, I justified the ribbon bar addition based on the following Rice University Woodson Research Center library citation: "At the suggestion of Jefferson Davis himself, the soldiers also received silver medals with green ribbons." [1] The Wikipedia article itself also states "The campaign medal hung from a green ribbon, in honor of the Irish origins of the unit's members." With these references in mind, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the issue at hand. Very respectfully, Lieutcoluseng ( talk) 23:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
List of space forces, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
b
uidh
e
19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Think: If an Air Force has its own signals, logistics, medical, military police, electronic warfare etc branch, and another one has outsourced all that into a joint support branch, and then you start comparing these Air Force's manpowers, wouldn't that be distorting? And all you have to say is "Air Forces" are "Air Forces"!? Well then, en.wiki... LKIT2 ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The USSF flag has been revealed per this. What do we need to do to get an SVG version made? Should we just use the JPG version for now? Btw, I'm surprised they went with a black flag, as the seal uses a nice dark blue. - BilCat ( talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I played around with changing the background of the flag to dark blue, but I didn't like it. (Bad file, so I didn't post it.) Then I changed the seal's background to black. I think I like the black better. - BilCat ( talk) 01:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, wanted to upload an image cropped from US Air Force Academy yearbook. Are those in the public domain? -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 03:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps under USAF the 30th Space Wing "was the range" in USAF history but the range was preexisting and has considerable history as the Navy Pacific Missile Range (PMR). That was addressed in the article you simply redirected without ensuring the target article had coverage or at least mention. Neither function nor existence of the range appeared out of nothing. That needs at least a mention in any "Range" discussion. I might agree to a thing, the range, equating to an organization with such coverage included, but not to obliterating the fact the range had previous history and "management." Palmeira ( talk) 12:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi.. refer to my edit on coast guards, it's true that we have discussion on this matter on
WP:MILHIST a while ago.
However, after that discussion archived. I just noticed that refer to
MOS:IBX, infobox should summarizes key features of the page's subject. IMO key feature's on the page subject's are it's role and coast guards primary role is maritime law enforcement, meanwhile military unit primary role is for warfare (defense or invasion). Same argument applies to changes on infobox on
gendarmerie and
military police pages.
The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 lists 11 US Coast Guard missions, most of them are law enforcement related and defense readiness is only one of the Coast Guard’s missions. USCG's mission also can be see
here, So USCG key role is on law enforcement.
Compare USCG mission to US Navy
mission, where it said The Dept of Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterence through sustained naval presense..
Ckfasdf (
talk)
02:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda, I don't know if you remember, but back in March, you helped me sort out the Whiteman Air Force Base article because someone had copy-pasted a bunch of material there. I ended up rewriting most of the article. I just ran across a different article - The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle - where it looks like most of the text was copy-pasted from here. Is it okay to just delete that text? Not sure what the proper way to proceed is, as that material is the bulk of the the article. JimKaatFan ( talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop switching the flag. The flag that keeps being put up is the correct flag. If something is associated create a section on the page for it, but the main flag is the one that you keep taking down.
Hey Garuda28, my apologies to tap on you, but any chance I can get you to chime in here - Just looking for some ideas on the lead (trying to keep it concise & grammatically correct) Cheers FOX 52 ( talk) 05:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Seal_Team_Six. Konli17 ( talk) 13:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been doing a list of the commanders of the Space and Missile Systems Center and here's what I've come up with so far /info/en/?search=User:AFLBulawan/sandbox2 Is there any resource to check for a timeline of commanders of SMC or any other unit because so far I'm only cross-referencing it with secondary references, i.e. photos, press releases of the headquarter's website. -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 02:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Garuda28: and @ Maliepa: So here's my beef with the NDAA 2020, while it requires all services to publish three-star and four-star assignments to the general media, it leaves a back door for the Army not to announce them if they deem that announcing such assignments to be detrimental. So once again, they are taking full advantage of that loop hole and will not announce them, EVER. The DoD will sometimes announce Army general officer assignments to joint positions within the DoD, but lately, that's not a given due to the Army's intervention and their standing policy to not announce general officer assignments until AFTER the officer is confirmed by the Senate. At this point, they will never announce their general/flag officer assignments, like the other six armed services do now, as they follow the general provision of the law via NDAA 2020. And while I don't haven definitive proof of Dickinson's assignment as commander of USSPACECOM, I'm rarely wrong in my assumptions for the past six years, given the available information, and due to all four-star positions having specific career-patch and service requirements, by U.S. law, in order to be appointed to such positions. So while I don't actually agree with you removing the assignment info, I do understand why you did, just that we will not see eye-to-eye on that subject. As for LTG Cavoli, he is most likely going to be replacing GEN Miller as commander of U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, as Miller's two-year assignment as commander is coming to an end. Cavoli also has years of experience in Afghanistan. Neovu79 ( talk) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop [2] removing a very rare public reference to very low-profile units!! We add refs, not remove them!! Buckshot06
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).? Looking though my history I didn’t realize I removed that before and then was reverted by you, my apologies. I did not intend to go around you like that.
Garuda28 (
talk)
12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remote the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris ( talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris ( talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you know what AFSOCJTAC means? A new user has just created an account by that name, and I wanted to make sure it didn't violate COI and Username by implying an official account. I'm.also trying to avoid biting a new user by overreacting. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, is there a particular reason why you used an unabbreviated service branch for the deputy commander and senior enlisted leader in the commanders section in United States Space Command? Would it be possible to use the abbreviations instead as a suffix? -- AFLBulawan ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28, you are familiar with Template:Infobox military unit (MU) and Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) - WikiProject Military discussion in March and United States Revenue Cutter Service discussion last month. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I have to contact editors directly. Can you please review it - anything you would change, add, suggest, etc.. It will be similar to military using Template:Infobox national military then for units MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You're already on this, I see https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287005/space-force-begins-transition-into-field-organizational-structure. Tell me what help you need. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Garrison commands of the United States Space Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda,
Some editors peristently keep pushing POV by readding nonexistent bases to Pakistan and Turkey in the List of countries with overseas military bases. See my comments on talkpage there. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen this edit? I tried to read the PDF the IP cites, but I couldn't get through the milspeak. (I didn't spend much time on it, as I'm still trolling through my watchlist.) Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for a page that would just be a list of combat jumps. Originally I was trying to figure out if there was a way to know which US soldier in WWII had the most but I don't think that is possible unless it happens to be someone famous like Lew Nixon. Regardless I think it would be interesting and useful in its own right. Cheers 96.240.128.124 ( talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from its website, "U.S. Naval Institute" is it's official name, and probably the most common one also, yet the article is at United States Naval Institute. Do you know anything about it? BilCat ( talk) 03:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I see our "friend" is still refusing to drop the sitck about DMY formats. Most the responses have reiterated what we already told him before, and he still doesn't let go. Sigh. I've considered chiming in again, but I'd just be repeating what's already been said over and over to no avail. BilCat ( talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I know we’ve had our disagreements but I think the current version is the best one. It doesn’t paint them as infantry as infantry holds ground and attacks and defends whereas secfor more defends. Hopefully this version stays . Cowsthatfloat ( talk) 01:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User Silverdragon3002 changed content in that article Military, content is about rankings of a militaries by country according to Credit Suisse. User removed that source and added something called globalfirepower what seems as a just some type of blog as a source. Please if you can check it, it seems pretty messy. 178.222.117.254 ( talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 21st Fighter Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Downlink | The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter |
---|---|---|
WikiProject Notification |
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members. |
---|
The Downlink project page |
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020. |
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thought you would find this interesting: [3]
So, it looks like 14 AF was redesignated Space Operations Command, but is now being inactivated and transferring its assets to a newly constituted Space Operations Command. Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey. Just as an FYI, most if not all pages which shows national rank templates has "The rank insignia for commissioned officers for the army, navy and air force respectively." written in some form or another. Making your change unnecessary. Additionally, there are now 247 templates with full names and 1072 templates without, resulting in inconsistency between the templates, as seen on Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. Skjoldbro ( talk) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment...In your recent edit summary of the United States Coast Guard, you mention that "Deputy SELs generally aren’t considered among the top leadership of a service". That may be true of the other armed services, but not the Coast Guard. While I agree with the reasoning of your edit, the Coast Guard is a different animal when compared to any of the other services. (The Space Force is too new to make that kind of judgment.) The Coast Guard is so small that anyone that has served more than a couple of enlistments can not go to a new duty assignment without running into others that they have served with before at another station or cutter. I served in the Coast Guard for 18 years and any duty station that I was assigned, there were at least a half a dozen people that I knew from other duty assignments. It is indeed a small service. This is not a criticism of your edit, just a comment on the one of the many differences between the Coast Guard and its sister services. I totally agree with you about whether the deputy senior enlisted need to be listed in an infobox. They don't...TMI! They wouldn't be listed for the Army so why the Coast Guard? But...I guess my point is that sometimes things within the Coast Guard are significant to the Coast Guard but it wouldn't make a damn in the larger services. Thank you for the edit you have made and the hundreds of other edits on military articles. Without your edits, many of the service articles would be a jumbled mess. I am just taking the opportunity to tell you to keep on fighting the good fight. Cheers. Cuprum17 ( talk) 16:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Mate
I amended the Tile of the RANK to Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force as that is the RANK. Where as the OFFICE/POSITION is titled Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force. The USSF unlike the other 5 branches are potentially separating the rank from the Office.
I made the change based on this facebook image where he signs the slip of paper as CMSSF #1 https://www.facebook.com/SEASpaceForce/photos/a.113666273639089/170459147959801/
-- Hawkeyebasil ( talk) 11:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
By any chance are you able to make the rank tables you added, collapsible? It just seems like a lot to look at for an article about the overall U.S. military. Also, I personally would have preferred to only cover their rank structures in that greater detail only in each of the individual service pages as they currently are there. A cursory mention or link to "see main articles" in this article would have sufficed. Having them on United States Armed Forces just seems kind of redundant. Neovu79 ( talk) 05:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, You keep doing a blanket delete of the page, removing pictures and information that is actually sourced, but keep saying it’s not sourced. For instance, you keep deleting all of the battles/wars that they’ve been actively involved in, but that information comes from Air Force Manuals. You keep deleting the section displaying the Beret flash it’s description as well as the text stating that the Air Force expects security forces to be first in and fit to fight, which was taken right out of official documentation. Also, many sources have referred to Security Forces as the Air Force’s “infantry”, (not Army Infantry, there’s a differentiation there) including their “Top Cop”, Brigadier General Andrea Tullos who stared “we size up to the Army’s lightest of light infantry” which is documented. Can we go through the information and at least stop completely discrediting these guys? User60314 ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thought you might find this page useful. Cheers - wolf 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
For the Navy and Coast Guard apprenticeship rank (E-1 to E-3), a fireman apprentice is still a seaman apprentice by rank. Fireman apprentice is the Navy's job/rate title for a seaman apprentice in the fireman community. The same thing goes for an person who is a airman apprentice. That person is still holding the rank of seaman apprentice. When a fireman is promoted to petty officer third class, they hold the title fireman third class, etc. If they are promoted to chief petty officer, they hold the title chief fireman. The different colors for fireman and airman are considered job colors only. I think it would be less cluttered for the table, if it only included the most common job rating and rank color for the chevrons. So for E-1 to E-3 would be white as it is the most common color as that main community separates into dozens of job ratings. Also red chevrons through petty officer first class would be appropriate and most of the time they hit 12 years of service while in the middle of holding that rank after a couple of years. Neovu79 ( talk) 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Hopkins and Air University.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Military Barnstar | |
In recognition of all the effort you have been putting into military articles, including the collaborating you have done on the talk pages. Your good work hasn't gone unnoticed, so keep it up! Cheers - wolf 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
That's sad... I was looking forward to adding another naval rank structure to the uniformed service rank tables. However, just because Congress isn't forcing them to adopt naval ranks, it doesn't mean that they won't adopt them eventually. Who knows, LOL. Also, did you see that GEN Paul LaCamera was nominated to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve while serving as commander of U.S. Forces Korea? That's actually a strange one to me, given the unrest with China and North Korea. One would assume that the men and women under that command would want an officer that's serving in the Regular Army, but then again, LaCamera has been serving in the Regular Army his entire career. My only conclusion is that they asked him to go into the reserves as either a cost saving or a financial measure. Personnel pay for active duty reserves is provided from a different allotment of funds, rather than the funds allotted to regulars. Neovu79 ( talk) 10:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing this edit? I reverted it for a couple reasons; first it caught my attention as it was marked as "minor" when it obviously was not, but also because it completely re-wrote a section, removing info about the Chief of Staff, and content that was part of the attached ref, as well as the tone and meaning of the section.
But that said, there was other info added, with an additional ref. (I don't want to just dismiss this, but trying to collaborate with this editor is... difficult. I don't want to see the whole thing spiral into a dog's breakfast, over a single edit.) If you could take a look at the edit and the ref, see if you think it's worthwhile, then go from there. It would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Training and Readiness Delta (Provisional), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycroft.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Er, sorry, the distinguished and notable Guardians of the Space Force ;) I swear, what a choice!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history " Military Historian of the Year" and " Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For being a pleasure to work with over at United States Space Force. You've worked with me and others to address multiple talk page concerns. You've been open to trimming large parts of the article. You've added paragraphs of high quality content. I was expecting battles for some of this stuff, but in each case you immediately saw our root concerns and were an absolute pleasure to work with. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Thought Space Delta 7 was the new member of the intelligence community? L'amateur d'aéroplanes ( talk) 06:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my point about the credibility of Space Force being linked to people's view of Trump? His involvement directly influences opinions on the value of Space Force. This is very pertinent to the reception that Space Force has received; which was the section to which I made my addition. There was no need to remove my valid point. Kindly put it back Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Article clearly says that for much of the public Space Force is seen as a Trump vanity project. Exactly my point. Please put my statement back Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I am having to work from a smart phone with limited capability. If you would return my original post I am willing to change it to reflect the vanity project wording. Are you willing to do this? Bluenose Gunner ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Missile Range.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"The rank was originally known as the Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force until it was renamed on 1 October 2021."
????
BilCat (
talk)
19:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for re-ordering the paragraphs -- I was doing the same thing but you beat me to it, so I'm glad we can agree on that at least as a temporary compromise (especially at this moment when more people are looking at the article and trying to figure out what Space Force actually is).
I may continue seeking to improve the lede in coming days, or I may lose interest, not sure yet. But I appreciate that you and (it looks like) a few others have put a ton of work into the article and I don't mean to be antagonistic. I was simply bothered that, like all those other people, I decided to check the Space Force article tonight to try to get a better idea of what SF is, and then on the second sentence it started talking about things happening in the 40s and 50s and my brain went "this is irrelevant to me I'm no longer interested I'm putting my phone down." Anyway, thanks again for the compromise and have a good night. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Just to let you know, I rollbacked your action on List of US Space Force installations. If you intend to blank and move a page, you should discuss it on the talkpage before making the action. There is already precedent for "List of's" with other US branches. The page is noteworthy within itself, and complies with WP:NOTE. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio! 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As I'm sure you saw in your watchlist, there was bout of vandalism on the SF page last week. The page was protected, but I wanted to point you to the SPI report that followed, since I don't know if you're aware of it or not. The admin there said to ping him if that kind of disruption occurs again. I'm just letting you know because you'd likely notice before me and would want to deal with it. - wolf 21:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this edit? Thanks - wolf 04:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Neovu79: "I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone...
" - No offense, but this isn't about how well you can see them. We should be taking others into account as well, no?
"...and I would be opposed to changing it back
" - why so adamant about it?
"The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform.
" - but this isn't the Marines, it's WP. And there is a difference between a full size patch on an actual uniform and an image that's only a couple millimeters in size on phone.
"The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates
" - the operative word being "changed". If they can be changed one way, they be changed another, no?
"The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service
" - well, the dress uniforms are just as professional, if not arguably more so. They're certainly more representational, consider what the service uniforms are used for and what the dress uniforms are used for. But that's not even the main crux of this, as I said, I'm just asking for the whereabouts of the consensus that led to the change. You have both mentioned (or alluded) to it. Perhaps it'll help me understand why you're so entrenched on this. Thanks again -
wolf
02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My edit of this article was purely grammatical. It had nothing to do with the status of the various members of the Joint Chiefs. The grammatical rule has to do with parallelism. The term "service chiefs" applies to the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. The representative of the NGB is referred to as a "chief." So there are three grammatically correct ways to write the list:
1. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau
2. the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau
3. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau
In #3, you need the second "and" to avoid a violation of parallelism. The grammatical shape of # 3 is:
the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force
and
the chief of the National Guard Bureau
Again, this is only a grammatical point. It has nothing to do with the status of these officers. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.D. ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Please do not make controversial moves without discussing them first. This is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial which recommends discussing the move whenever "someone could reasonably disagree with the move." In this case, the titles you are using are clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME [4] ( t · c) buidhe 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wow! Well done!! Morgengave ( talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for moving the Vandenberg Space Force Base article. Right decision. osunpokeh ( talk) 23:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I just ran across Cyber Branch (United States Army) while trying to answer a question at Template talk:US Army navbox#Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021. United States Army Cyber Command is already linked in the navbox, so I'm wondering if this is what the user is referring to. Unfortunately, the Cyber Branch article has minimal content, and really doesn't adequately explain what it is or what it does. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi G, have you seen Space Development Agency? It probably needs some navboxes, but I'm not sure which ones would be best. The article states the SDA is supposed to become part of the USSF, so should it be added somewhere on a USSF navbox? Also, one sentence has 26!! references, some of which are used elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I see you removed pillar point from the map, I reverted the changes back to before. However, if you do have a source or reason as to why it should be removed please put it in the edit summary next time. CJBruh ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
... might be "rebuttal." (in your fight over Trump's disparagement of the dead.)
Incidentally, you're credible and White isn't, given Trump's comments on McCain being taken prisoner.
Cheers, David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)